Introduction

With the benefits of higher education (HE), including upward mobility, improved job opportunities, and enhanced life trajectories, public demand for HE has steadily increased since the 1960s. In response, governments across Europe initiated policies to increase access to HE, thereby aiming to provide both economic benefits and social justice. In relation to this, several studies indicate that access to HE across Europe has increased significantly, with schooling rates reported to have risen from 50% in 2000 to 66% in 2019 in Italy and from 51% to 68% in France (Marginson, 2016b; Triventi, 2013). Similarly, across OECD countries, the share of tertiary degrees rose from 27% in 2000 to 48% in 2021 (OECD, 2022).

Despite this remarkable expansion of HE, it is difficult to claim that all students realized these outcomes (Karen, 2002; Roksa, 2010; Triventi, 2014). In other words, expanded access does not ensure meaningful participation and equitable outcomes. Research indicates that students from disadvantaged backgrounds often encounter difficulties in navigating HE due to limited social, cultural, and economic capital (Moreau & Leathwood, 2006). As a result, HE may have limited effectiveness in supporting their development.  This evidence suggests that access to HE, while necessary, is inadequate to provide a just and fair HE system. Instead, social justice in HE requires attention to how institutional arrangements shape students’ opportunities to participate and transform their lives (Wilson-Strydom, 2011).

Despite the fact that inequalities inevitably permeate HE, this study adopts a critical perspective, arguing that HE can reduce inequalities when institutions actively cultivate socially just mechanisms, support students’ agency, and enhance capability development. In this regard, even elite HEIs, criticized for reproducing privilege, may also function as a transformative space for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. By creating inclusive institutional mechanisms, this study argues that these institutions can provide resources that function as capability inputs, guiding students in converting capabilities into valued outcomes through their agency. 

Theoretical framework

This study utilizes the capabilities framework (CF) to examine how personal, social, and institutional factors, identified as conversion factors, impede/support students’ development in HE. The CF accounts for social arrangements (Robeyns, 2017) and complex structures and also highlights the opportunities and freedoms available to each student (Robeyns, 2017) that they can translate into their desired outcomes (Wilson-Strydom, 2017). Each individual has agency (Sen, 1999) to pursue the goals they value, which is also shaped by their social, political, and environmental assets.

HE plays a critical role in this process by providing capabilities and supporting self-formation. Marginson (2024) indicates HE as an instrument of freedom by widening capabilities and supporting agency, while Sen (1999) emphasizes education as a fundamental capability that stimulates other capabilities and cultivates empowerment. Despite HE’s importance to human development, the question of ‘how’ remains less addressed.

Also, there is an emerging scholarship indicating the redistributive and recognitive effects of institutional practices such as financial support, mentoring, and extracurricular engagement, highlighting their positive impact on students’ sense of belonging, participation, and well-being (Harrison et al., 2018; Marshall & Case, 2010). However, less attention has been paid to how these practices interact with institutional structures to support capability development and student transformation. Addressing this gap, the present study explores how an elite HEI can mitigate accumulated disadvantage through institutional mechanisms that enhance students’ capabilities by answering the following questions:

1. What are the structural and individual barriers to access to elite HE?
2. What are the structural mechanisms that diminish the effects of the earlier barriers?
3. How do these mechanisms affect the transformation of students?

This study employed a generic qualitative design (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2015) to examine how socio-economically and culturally disadvantaged students experienced their adaptation, transformation, and meaning-making (Clandinin & Caine, 2013) at a prestigious university. As reported by Merriam (1998, p.11), the generic qualitative design is appropriate when researchers aim to “simply seek to discover and understand a phenomenon, a process, or the perspectives and worldviews of the people involved” (Merriam, 1998, p. 11), which aligns with the focus of the current research. Using criterion- and maximum-variation sampling techniques, fourteen socioeconomically and culturally disadvantaged students were recruited. Within the scope of this research, socio-economically and culturally disadvantaged students were identified as students who have at least two of the following characteristics: (1) first-generation students, (2) employed students, (3) students with prior residence in rural areas of Türkiye, and (5) having a low economic background. Regarding the above-listed sampling technique, two criteria were used to select participants: students from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with at least 4 years of experience at this prestigious university. For maximum variation sampling, participants were represented by gender, department, and employment status. Therefore, there was equal representation by gender, with eight participants being first-generation students. Regarding their place of residence, except for four students, all others reported living in a village or small city with very limited opportunities, unlike their current residence (the university is located in the capital). The participants' departments also varied, representing education, administrative sciences, humanities, engineering, and life sciences. Four of the participants were working part-time. Also, participants had a minimum of four or five years of experience at this university. The data were collected through semi-structured interviews that lasted more than one hour. The researchers developed the interview protocol to focus on participants' higher-education trajectories, beginning with their access and extending to their experiences during their higher-education journey. Furthermore, the questions focused on the challenges students faced, their perspectives on the university's social justice practices, and the impact of these practices on students’ transformation. The interview form comprised seven dimensions: demographics; the transmission process to the university; university experiences; the institution's social justice practices, including distribution, recognition, and participation; and capabilities. The collected data were inductively analyzed through initially organizing the data, engaging in a recursive and iterative analysis by creating codes, and finally grouping codes under three larger themes (Marshall & Rossman, 2016).

The results indicated three themes: challenges during the transition process, the institution's social justice practices, and the impact of transformation. Participants highlighted the difficulty of adapting to this prestigious university, citing academic, social, and financial barriers. Coming from a financially deprived background, coupled with limited cultural capital, challenged students’ adaptation and their recognition of opportunities within HE. Despite these difficulties in the first years, most participants remarked that the structures and opportunities at this institution transformed them academically, socially, and culturally. For instance, one participant described the role of HE as a social justice provider as follows: “I can say that it is an institution that tries to provide social justice. In other words, as I said when I first came, I had some financial concerns, but in that respect, I can say that it slightly improved my status. In terms of scholarships, for example, I was thinking of a place to stay, where I can stay, or if I can find a place to stay. The accommodation was also ensured. (P5). Overall, this study indicates that, when equipped with formal and informal socially just mechanisms and structures, HE can be a transformative space for mitigating pre-existing inequalities and ensuring the personal, professional, and cultural flourishing of disadvantaged students. A key fact is that humans are accumulative beings, and all students bring their realities together when accessing HE. Thus, HE cannot provide an equal start, but can equalize conditions by creating supportive mechanisms and opportunities, guiding students to exercise their agency to translate their capabilities into functioning. Therefore, this study highlights the importance of analyzing conversion factors that impede students’ engagement in HE and eliminating those through university structures. As the results indicate, there is a further need to expand human capabilities to ensure social justice for students.

Clandinin, D. J., & Caine, V. (2013). Narrative inquiry. In Reviewing qualitative research in the social sciences (pp. 166-179). Routledge. Harrison, N., Davies, S., Harris, R., & Waller, R. (2018). Access, participation and capabilities: Theorizing the contribution of university bursaries to students’ well-being, flourishing and success. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(6), 677–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2017.1401586 Karen, D. (2002). Changes in access to higher education in the United States: 1980- 1992. Sociology of Education, 75(3), 191-210. Marginson, S. (2024). Student self-formation: An emerging paradigm in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 49(4), 748-762. Marginson, S. (2016). High participation systems of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 87(2), 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.11777401 Marshall, D., & Case, J. (2010). Rethinking ‘disadvantage’in higher education: A paradigmatic case study using narrative analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 35(5), 491-504. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2016). Designing qualitative research. Sage. Merriam S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass. Merriam S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass. Moreau & Leathwood, 2006). Moreau, M. P., & Leathwood, C. (2006). Balancing paid work and studies: Working (class) students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(1), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500340135 OECD. (2022). Education at a glance 2022. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/education-at-a-glance-2022_3197152b-en/full-report/component-8.html#tablegrp-d1e2688 Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th edition). Sage. Robeyns, I. (2017). Wellbeing, freedom and social justice: The capability approach re-examined (p. 266). Open book publishers. Roksa, J. (2010). Bachelor’s degree completion across state contexts: Does the distribution of enrollments make a difference? Research in Higher Education, 51, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9146-7 Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press. Triventi, M. (2013). Stratification in higher education and its relationship with social inequality: A comparative study of 11 European countries. European Sociological Review, 29(3). Triventi, M. (2014). Higher education regimes: An empirical classification of higher education systems and its relationship with student accessibility. Qual Quant, 48, 1685-1703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9868-7 Wilson- Strydom, M. (2015). University access and theories of social justice: contributions of the capabilities approach. Higher Education, 69, 143-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9766-5 Wilson-Strydom, M. (2017). Disrupting structural inequalities of higher education opportunity: “Grit”, resilience and capabilities at a South African university. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18(3), 384-398. Wilson-Strydom, M. (2011). University access for social justice: a capabilities perspective. South African Journal of Education, 31(3), 407-418.